Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
42
DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS AND VOCABULARY USE IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS' SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED
COMMUNICATION
by Ali Farhan AbuSeileek
Al al-Bayt University, Jordan
alifarhan66 @ gmail.com
and Ghaleb Rabab'ah
Alfaisal University, Saudi Arabia
grababah @ alfaisal.edu
Abstract
This study explored the discourse generated by English as a foreign language (EFL) learners using
synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) as an approach to help English language
learners to create social interaction in the classroom. It investigated the impact of synchronous
CMC mode on the quantity of total words, lexical range and discourse functions of EFL learners’
writing from different genders (males vs. females). Thirty-two intermediate EFL students discussed
four topics in four CMC sessions.
The findings revealed that gender played a major role in shaping the quantity of discourse
(total words), lexical range (variety), and linguistic output (i.e., the quantity and type of discourse
functions) that was generated using synchronous CMC mode. By and large, the female participants
produced more words, complex lexical range and output discourse functions than males in the
CMC setting. Moreover, the study showed that the participants produced discourse functions
shaped by the particularities of local social arrangements. Users found opportunities in the virtual
world of CMC which enabled them to blind their identities, so people in subordinate conditions,
such as females in certain conservative societies, EFL learners, and shy students may find CMC
useful for fostering their communicative competence.
1. Introduction
As some educational institutions still use inappropriate methodology such as the teacher-centered
approach for teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), disappointing results in learning
outcomes are often reported (AbuSeileek, 2007, 2012). Therefore, there is a need for ways that
are more likely to promote learning EFL. One option is to use computer-assisted language
learning (CALL), which includes various techniques, more specifically computer-mediated-
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
43
communication (CMC). One of the major goals of CMC is to help learners to be involved in
interactive language learning activities. Vandergriff (2006) has highlighted the fact that the CMC
environment affects communicative interaction between language learners and allows them to
play a greater role in managing discourse. As CMC gives learners with an opportunity to
communicate with each other, they provide each other with feedback at the level of lexis,
grammar or spelling and increase their linguistic input and output (Kitade, 2000; Yilmaz &
Granena, 2010; Yilmaz, 2011; Yilmaz & Yuksel, 2011).
As Ware (2008: 43) remarks, “online communication tools have been taken up eagerly by
the foreign language teaching community” to help learners develop communicative competence
when they engage with each other in a learning situation. Cassel & Stone (2005) also emphasize
that there is a need for a toolkit that allows students to contact each other, as a way to experiment
with models of discourse, dialogue, collaborative conversation, and interaction. Online
communication tools have been helpful for learners in the EFL contexts and beyond. As Kitade
(2008) stated, "CMC enables language learners to actively engage in interactions with a wider
range of interlocutors because the interactions are both place-independent and time-independent"
(p. 64). Jeon-Ellis, Debski & Wigglesworth (2005) point out that the major goal of CMC is to
provide language learners with a tool to facilitate communicative activities where they are
engaged in meaningful linguistic interactions.
This present study explores the discourse generated by English as a foreign language
(EFL) learners using synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) as an approach to
help English language learners to create social interaction in the classroom. It investigates the
impact of synchronous CMC mode on the quantity of total words, lexical range and discourse
functions of EFL learners’ writing from different genders (males vs. females).
1.1 Sociolinguistic setting
There are certain sociocultural factors that may shape the linguistic behavior of Jordanian EFL
learners. Jordan has made a large investment in importing and localizing technology (Husseini,
2010). Over the last two decades, many technological tools have been introduced in the country.
Mobile phones with multiple electronic services are now used by the majority of people. The
number of mobile subscribers is more than 100% (Chartsbin, 2012), which has affected people’s
communication pattern. In addition, most people have television satellites at home, enabling them
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
44
to come in virtual contact with and have more access to other cultures. Moreover, Internet
connections are available for a large majority of the population, making it possible for them to
contact people from different cultures using synchronous CMC modes and have access to global
sources of knowledge. Furthermore, the government has adopted laws granting more rights for
women. Jordanian women nowadays enjoy legal equality in movement, health care, education,
political participation, and employment. Males and females now have equal access to
undergraduate education (see Husseini, 2010 for more information). The number of female
students at all levels of education has risen so markedly that the majority of the students in
private and public educational establishments are females. In the majority of universities and
higher education colleges, males and females study together. In the last decade of the last
century, the Jordanian Women University was founded, and it received only female students.
However, it was forced to enroll both male and female students in the last decade and to change
its name into Petra University because the concept was not successful.
2. Literature review
This study explores gender and communicative competence in second or foreign language in
CMC environment under two major headings (a) communicative competence in CMC and (b)
foreign language learning, gender and discourse functions.
2.1 Communicative competence in CMC
The present study is one of the first to examine two aspects of communicative competence in
synchronous CMC mode in an EFL context first identified in the model proposed by Canale &
Swain (1980). The concept focuses mainly on verbal communication skills and the
implementation of a communicative approach in language learning. Their model underlines
increasing learners' motivation to learn and developing their flexibility in handling functions and
interactions. The two aspects of the communicative competence first presented by Canale &
Swain (1980) include grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. According to
Canale & Swain (1980), grammatical competence helps learners to determine and express
accurately the literal meaning of utterances. Sociolinguistic competence, on the other hand, is a
major factor in interpreting utterances for social meaning.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
45
Several studies have analyzed lexical range/variety as a part of grammatical competence.
Fitz (2006), for example, found that the discourse generated in written synchronous online
communication displays greater lexical range and more discourse demonstrating interactive
competence than face-to-face discussions. There was also statistically significant effect for
increased lexical range in written electronic conferences. His findings also showed that students
practiced and used more vocabulary related to the topics during CMC sessions.
Other studies examined linguistic complexity and lexical diversity of linguistic output
produced during synchronous CMC. Language learners appear to use the increased online (i.e.
moment-by-moment) planning time afforded by chat to engage in careful language production
and monitoring (Sauro & Smith, 2010). Finally, Perez (2003) investigated language productivity
in foreign language learner output obtained via two different modes of CMC (asynchronous and
synchronous). Results showed that a higher number of words were produced in the synchronous
CMC mode, i.e., audio-graphic conferencing.
The second aspect which the present study focuses on is sociolinguistic competence (i.e.,
discourse functions) in synchronous CMC which may affect the discourse functions generated by
participants. Sotillo (2000) investigated the effect of CMC modes on the quality and quantity of
different discourse functions such as topic initiation, requests, agreement, and apology. She
observed that teaching tools and techniques have a significant effect on the quality and quantity
of the discourse produced. Other studies have examined the use of opening and closing
sequences, patterns of topic assignment, and maintenance by participants in computer-mediated
interactions. For instance, Abrams (2008) suggested that computer-mediated learner-to-learner
interaction offers L2 learners opportunities for active control of topic selection and management
and provides rich opportunities for learners to recognize and adapt to diverse interactional
patterns through collaboration among the interactants. In addition, Darhower (2002) explored the
effect of CMC social interactive features including intersubjectivity, off-task discussion,
greetings and leave-takings, identity, exploration and role play, humor and sarcasm, and use of
the L1 (English). He added, "Through these communicative behaviors, learners appropriated the
chat room environment, transforming it into a learner-centered discourse community governed by
communicative autonomy and the use of language and discourse functions that go beyond those
encountered in the typical L2 classroom" (p. 249). Finally, although CMC mode has been used in
language teaching and learning since the 1990s, Chapelle (1997) suggested that researchers need
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
46
to address critical questions concerning the kind or quality of language learners produce in CALL
activities, a major goal addressed in this study.
2.2 Foreign language learning, gender and discourse functions
Several studies have shown that there are linguistic differences between males and females
(Hiramoto, 2010; Tomasi1 & Volkow, 2011). There is good evidence suggesting that men and
women tend to use language for different purposes, which affects their linguistic output,
including discourse functions. For example, Cameron (2009) concludes that laboratory-based
work of neuro- and psycholinguists investigating male–female differences and the research
conducted originally by socio- or applied linguists and linguistic anthropologists reveal that the
two sexes differ in their typical modes of verbal interaction. Shehadeh (1999) also demonstrates
that men and women tend to use conversation for different purposes with men taking advantage
of the conversation in a way that allows them to promote their performance and production
abilities while women utilize conversation to obtain a greater amount of comprehension input.
Furthermore, many studies have revealed that both men and women use different discourse
functions. Cameron (2009) reports that men favor more competitive speech styles and genres
while women are more cooperative, empathetic and nurturing. She adds, “Boys acquire a
competitive, status-oriented communication style: they learn to argue, boast, criticize, give, and
receive orders. Meanwhile, girls acquire a more co-operative and supportive style; they learn to
agree, praise, empathize, make suggestions and resolve disputes” (p. 179). However, other
researchers have made different observations. Goodwin (2006) noticed that girls argue about the
games' rules while discussions and engage in regular boasting about their skills, their possessions
and the relative wealth of their families. They also issued orders to one another and to boys.
Moreover, language has evolved to facilitate social interaction and serve different social
purposes. Light, Nesbitt, Light, & Burns (2000) found that males who shifted the discourse style
from contributions that are more formal to testing the boundary comments, dominated the
discussion. According to Shehadeh (1999), males tend to dominate conversations, interrupt and
give more words that are complimentary to their female interlocutors. Guiller & Durndell (2007)
also report that males were more likely than females to use authoritative language and to respond
negatively in interactions. On the other hand, females were more likely than males to explicitly
agree and support others and to make more personal and emotional contributions.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
47
Using different methods, techniques and curriculum content may influence the discourse
functions produced by males and females. As Barnett & Rivers (2008) report, curriculum content
and teaching methods should be tailored to suit differences between boys and girls. Other studies
(Shehadeh, 1999) propose that EFL teachers should be equipped with a syllabus and
methodologies to engineer situations that create equal opportunities for both males and females in
all aspects of classroom interaction.
Furthermore, there are linguistic differences between males and females in CMC settings.
CMC may affect the discourse functions generated by male and female participants. For example,
males dominate online interaction by making longer and more frequent postings than females
(see Herring, 1994; Richardson & French, 2000; Sierpe, 2000). Acikalin (2008) also reports that
users can avoid seeing each other’s faces or hearing each other’s voices, and there are no visual
or auditory clues to indicate speaker’s gender using some CMC applications. Male style is based
on argumentativeness while females prefer cooperativeness (see Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger,
& Tarule, 1997; Guiller & Durndell, 2007). Other studies (Herring, 1994; Guiller & Durndell,
2007) report that the minority gender group accommodated to the style of the majority in CMC
discussions. Spender (1995) also found that women are more subjected to emotional abuse than
that received offline, and that they are targets for abuse and harassment from their male
counterparts, so they, according to Winegar (2002) preferred to conceal their identities through
seeking refuge by adopting masculine identities. According to Herring (1996), CMC failed to
neutralize gender distinctions, and yet Bromley (1995) concluded that CMC is a gender-neutral
space.
The present study seeks to contribute to investigations of two aspects of communicative
competence in synchronous CMC mode in the context of EFL learning. The area of gender
differences in CALL use is under-reported. Consequently, a need exists for a study measuring the
impact of CMC on the quantity of the discourse and lexical range, the discourse functions
generated by EFL learners from different genders.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
48
3. The study
3.1 Research questions
This study analyzes the quantity of linguistic discourse generated by EFL learners using
synchronous CMC and offers generic support for active learning processes such as
communication by answering the following three research questions:
1. To what extent does gender influence the quantity of discourse (total words) in
synchronous CMC of EFL learners?
2. Will discourse produced by males and females be lexically complex in synchronous
CMC of EFL learners?
3. Do males or females generate more discourse (i.e., the quantity and type of discourse
functions) in online CMC discussions?
3.2 Participants
This study was conducted in the Department of English Language and Literature of the College
of Arts at Al al-Bayt University in the Northern Region of Jordan. The mission of this department
is to equip students with language skills and to broaden cross-cultural understanding. In order to
achieve these goals, the college has started using NetOP software, a virtual class system, to
support educational activities in different settings and for communication skills training.
Thirty-two undergraduate students from one class of a sociolinguistics course participated
in this study. The participants, whose English language competence was intermediate, came from
the Department of English, College of Arts at al al-Bayt University. They met for an hour and a
half twice-weekly. Their average age was 20.3 years (age range 19-22 years). All of them were
Jordanian learners of English, and none of them had been to the United States, the United
Kingdom or Canada. All students used an online discussion board to communicate with their
classmates and others which allowed, allowing for synchronous discussions. At school, they
studied English for twelve years. Everyone has used a computer before with an average of twelve
years of usage experience. Their mean score in the secondary general English exam was 72.53 %.
Their mean score GPA was 2.63/4 (good). The department placement test showed that there were
no significant differences at the p. < .05 level in the mean scores of the proficiency of the two
groups: males (Number = 16, Mean = 69.91 Standard Deviation = 2.32) and females (Number =
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
49
16, Mean = 70.87, Standard Deviation = 1.98), which shows that both groups (males and
females) are balanced for overall language proficiency performance before the experiment.
3.3 Design and procedure
This study assumes that online CMC can be helpful for EFL learners to generate discourse as it
provides an environment fostering interaction. Students took several web-based writing tasks and
activities based on using NetOP, which is equipped with several tools for communication such as
the chat facility. Students used the chat activity for conducting synchronous communication
where the text interaction sessions were saved and retrieved for later viewing. Students were
required to discuss four tasks in four sessions. They were of general nature and related to
students' life. They aimed to improve the participants' linguistic competence and performance.
The present study is based on analyzing the linguistic output produced by students in these tasks.
They included the following:
1) Television: What are the advantages/disadvantages of TV? What is the effect of TV on
sociocultural values of the society? What is your favorite program? Why?
2) Car Accidents: Causes, effects, suggested solutions, etc.; describe a car accident you saw;
3) Student problems (exams, schedule, transport, friends, courses, instructors, etc.);
4) Internet: What are the advantages and disadvantages? What is the effect of the Internet on
you? What is your favorite site? Why?
All students were enrolled in an intact class, and they were taught by the same instructor.
They had the same textbook and performed the same writing tasks (four 90-minute tasks) on the
learning environment and the same length of instruction (four sessions). The proficiency test
along with a survey of personal information (gender (males vs. females), age, nationality, years
of studying English, average, number of years using a computer, and amount of time spent living
in a native-speaking English country) were administered before the experiment started. Students
in each group (males and females) were assigned randomly to four groups of four students each.
Each male group was also assigned randomly to discuss each of the writing tasks with a female
group using the virtual classroom of NetOP. They were informed that they were participating in a
research project and they consented to participate. They were told their grades would not be
affected by their participation in the CMC discussions. Their identity was not revealed to each
other in order to reduce anxiety resulting from face-to-face cooperative debate. The researchers
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
50
set the scene for the activity by sending students a file which included the discussion topic. Then
participants in each group started text discussions. Each participant was required to discuss all
tasks with other group members, answer all subtask questions, discuss them with the group
members, and answer their questions.
3.4 Data collection and analysis
The number of words in each contribution was calculated by the Word Count facility in Microsoft
Word 2010 program. The transcripts were also checked for spelling by two raters (applied
linguists) and a computer-spell check to identify lexical range (unique words). They corrected
mistakes in spelling, and converted conversational words into formal written forms with the help
of the computer. Repeated words and any references to students’ names were eliminated by the
two raters. These steps were adopted because the lexical range analysis would be flawed by the
inclusion of these words. The misspelled words and proper names might have been recognized as
unique types of words. Several discourse functions (categories of behavior in CMC
communication discussions) were targeted in this study. Their operational definitions are
illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. List of discourse functions and definitions (modified from Sotillo, 2000).
Discourse
Definition
Unedited Example
Greetings
Opening move in discussion
- Hello everybody.
Topic initiation
Suggesting
Function
a
topic
synchronous
in
CMC
- Let’s talk about car accidents
- What do you think of students’ problems at the
discussions.
university?
Imperatives
Expressing commands
- Don’t say that.
Questions
Asking a question to get
- What the disadvantages of the Internet are?
information
Assertion
Statement
expressing
- Certainly, I think TV is good.
affirmation
Off topic
Changing the topic
under
discussion
- A: What do you think of the Internet?
B: Let’s talk about your favorite program.
Requesting
Requesting
contact
personal
information such as mobile
- I want take your mobile #?
- Send me please ur email? I need contacting you.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
information
51
number or email for the
purpose of personal contact
after the lesson.
Humor
Speech act of amusing
- You are not crazy.
Topic
Keeping
- What is next?
continuation
going
Warning
Expressing caution
Compliment
and
admiration
the
conversation
- Male-females talk is not allowed taboo.
Giving
frequent
complimentary and admiration
tokens to what interlocutors
say
Apology
Protesting
and
disagreement
- Students should work hard to solve problems.
- Oh, great Sara.
- I believe the Internet be both good and bad tools.
- Wonderful idea, Hasan.
Speech act including regret
- I’m very sorry.
Disagreement and protesting
- I disagree with all. Television not helpful students
about the topic and ideas
in study.
discussed because they are
- The discussion topic is not good. Internet is ok.
against the person’s beliefs,
You need use Internet to helping in contacting.
values or ideas.
Challenging
Speech
act
including
- Blocking any internet sites impossible.
challenge
Controversial
Makes controversial
- Intenet always good.
statement
Empathic
Expressing understanding of
- He is in a critical situation.
others’ feelings
Polite forms
Using polite expressions
Supporting
Using
statements
supports a previous point of
a
statement
- Thanx for these information.
which
- That’s right. Not all programs are good.
view
Emotional abuse
Passionate mistreatment by a
person
usually
male
- I love all beautiful girls.
for
another person usually female
The discourse functions were examined following Sotillo (2000). However, due to
sociocultural differences, they were also considered by the two raters and the participants who
added/deleted some discourse functions that males and females may produce differently. The
transcripts of each participant were analyzed separately for the different discourse functions by
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
52
the two raters to guarantee reliability. To establish inter-rater reliability, 10 % of the scripts were
selected randomly and analyzed separately by each of the two raters. They then discussed
differences until consensus was reached. Each of them analyzed the transcripts, and the inter-rater
reliability was found to be .94, which meets statistical standards. However, the data were
combined and categorized according to the variable of the study, i.e., gender (male vs. female).
Finally, ANOVA and t tests were run, with the number of words, lexical range and discourse
functions as the dependent variables, and gender as the independent variable.
4. Results
4.1. Total words
The first question sought to determine if there were statistically significant differences between
male and female groups in the total words generated using synchronous CMC. To calculate the
total words produced in CMC contributed by students, the t test was run on the totals as
illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of total words by gender
Total Words
Week
Males
Females
1
1411
1563
2
1437
1584
3
1547
1634
4
1563
1727
Mean
1489.50
1627.00
SD*
76.65
73.02
* SD = Standard Deviation
The figures in Table 2 on the total words revealed statistically significant differences
between males and females in favour of the latter in total words (t = -2.60, p < 0.05). This
suggests that the females group produced and practiced more discourse than males using
CMC. The table also shows that students consistently tended to produce more words in
synchronous CMC for week 4 compared to week 1.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
53
4.2. Lexical range
The second question focused on whether gender influences lexical range in synchronous CMC of
EFL learners. To determine if males or females tended to generate a greater lexical range, the
means and standard deviations for gender were calculated as indicated in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of lexical range by gender
Total Words
Week
Males
Females
1
270
302
2
278
312
3
289
334
4
291
347
Mean
282.00
323.75
SD*
9.83
20.47
* SD = Standard Deviation
There were statistically significant findings for gender in favour of females in lexical range (t = 3.68, p < 0.05). This suggests that females produced lexically more complex discourse, or
generated a more significantly lexical range than that produced by males using synchronous
CMC. In addition, both male and female groups of students consistently produced a more
complex range in week 4 compared to week 1 using CMC.
4.3. Discourse functions
The third question sought to determine differences based on gender regarding the discourse
functions. Means and standard deviations for the two groups were calculated as shown in Table
4.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
54
Table 4. Comparison of discourse functions by gender
Function
Males
Females
F
Mean
SD**
Mean
SD**
Greetings
3.6
3.12
4.90
2.9
9.98*
Topic initiation
4.06
2.46
5.67
2.68
4.18*
Imperatives
2.01
2.23
3.21
1.56
2.67*
Questions
4.23
3.54
7.03
4.60
3.12*
Assertion
3.81
3.72
2.40
3.08
4.70*
Off topic
6.45
4.11
4.21
2.56
2.43*
Requesting personal information
7.98
2.92
4.56
3.86
8.77*
Humor
4.52
3.45
3.23
3.13
4.48*
Topic continuation
2.34
2.32
2.65
1.78
1.21
Warning
2.42
2.34
1.59
1.38
.77
Compliment and admiration
7.09
4.39
4.97
4.43
8.92*
Apology
2.24
2.47
3.68
2.61
1.53*
Protesting and disagreement
1.69
2.78
1.31
1.42
1.17
Challenging
1.23
1.57
2.01
1.79
.97
Controversial
1.78
1.49
2.45
2.36
.64
Empathic
3.11
2.45
4.41
2.45
7.01*
Polite forms
3.59
2.77
5.23
2.68
8.45*
Supporting statements
2.58
1.78
4.56
3.12
4.79*
Emotional abuse
0.19
1.13
0.21
1.00
.65
Total
3.42
2.69
3.59
2.60
2.30*
* The results are significant at the p. < .05 level; **SD = Standard Deviation.
Based on the findings in Table 4, there were no significant differences between males and
females in the total mean of each group in the synchronous CMC. However, the results above
(see Table 4) show that there were significant statistical differences between males and females
in favour of males at the p < .05 level in certain discourse functions, suggesting that learners
produced discourse functions that differ by gender using CMC. Finally, many functions received
higher means than the general total for gender by both males and females. However, some
discourse functions obtained quite much lower means than the total mean, suggesting that both
males and females produced a small amount of these discourse functions using CMC. Moreover,
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
55
there were no statistically significant differences between males and females in other discourse
functions produced in CMC environment (see Table 4).
5. Discussion
As evidenced by the findings in Table 2 and Table 3, females used CMC to produce more words
and complex lexical range than males. In spite of the fact that students in both groups have the
same opportunity to participate in the discussion, the study revealed that synchronous CMC
might create opportunities for females to demonstrate these aspects of sociolinguistic
competence in English more than males. This was an unexpected finding and against the results
reported by many studies. For instance, some studies (e.g., Herring, 1994; Richardson & French,
2000; Sierpe, 2000) reported that males dominate online interaction by producing more words
than females. However, the findings of the present study could be attributed to three reasons.
First, males and females produced new sociolinguistic patterns with their distinctive discourse
functions using CMC. CMC appeared to have enabled the female participants conceal their real
names in CMC context, which might have motivated them to participate more in the discussion.
Acikalin (2008) reported that there are no visual or auditory clues to indicate speaker’s identity
in the world of CMC, and users do not see each other’s faces or hear each other’s voices.
Second, Escalera (2009) reported that there was a significant relationship between gender
and activity context, and between activity context and the discourse functions it demands, and
the conversational activity in which a student engages selects for certain discourse marker
functions and not others. Considering that women may be subjected to emotional abuse in online
settings (Spender, 1995), and targets for abuse and harassment from males (Winegar, 2002), this
situation might have created unique opportunities to assist people in subordinate conditions such
as females in conservative societies like the sample of this study to express their opinions and
contribute more in electronic discussions. Therefore, the anonymous nature of synchronous
CMC might provide excellent opportunities to encourage females to contribute more in the
electronic discussions.
Finally, sociolinguistic patterns including gender linguistic differences may differ from
one community to another. Cameron (2009) observed that sex/gender-linked sociolinguistic
patterns vary both across cultures and within them, and can change significantly over time. He
added, “Most researchers also agree in rejecting the ‘essentialist’ assumption that there are
characteristics (whether biologically based or socially produced) which all men or all women
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
56
axiomatically share ... [and] similarities and differences between men and women can be related
to the particularities of local social arrangements (for instance, people's occupations, social
networks, power relations, levels of literacy, rates of exogamy, beliefs about identity, etc.” (p. 7).
The female group obtained the highest mean in the output discourse functions using
CMC, including greeting their conversational partners, initiating topics, asking questions,
apologizing, being empathic, using polite forms, and supporting statements. This appears to
suggest that females produced discourse functions mainly characterized by cooperativeness with
their interlocutors in CMC environment. Probably, there is a chance for females to interact with
males and express their opinions using the virtual system. However, males generated
comparatively lower means than females in challenging, controversial, emotional abuse, and
using imperatives using CMC. This is against what is reported by many studies that female style
is based only on cooperativeness while males may prefer a more independent and argumentative
one (see Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997; Guiller & Durndell, 2007). In the
Department of English where the study was conducted, males are in the minority while females
are in the majority (i.e. 24% males vs. 76% females). Probably, males accommodated to the style
of females. Herring (1994) and Guiller & Durndell (2007) lend support to this finding as they
reported that the minority gender group accommodated to the style of the majority using CMC.
In this situation, females might feel they are more privileged than their male counterparts, and so
they led the CMC discussions and expressed their opinions in front of males. In addition, the
context where the study was conducted was a formal CMC classroom, an atmosphere that might
reduce females' cooperativeness and males' argumentativeness.
It has also been found that actually few students (males and females) produced
comparatively high means in expressing protesting and disagreement discourse function. Below
are illustrative examples:
1) “Sultana: I cant speak with boys. Not good.”
2) “Adel: No No No for boy-girl speaking together.”
3) “Suzan: [Females'] Interacting with males is not moral.”
4) “Ali: No for male-female talking together. We should keep our values."
Despite the fact that all learners agreed to participate in the study, and they equally did
so, it seems that this small group of learners of English resorted to the conventions of their
sociocultural values when performing in the discussion in CMC context. That is, their values do
not support contact between males and females. Therefore, they are different from global,
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
57
Islamic, Western, and Arab social values which support conducting the discussion between
males and females. It appears here that the language output students generated and the discourse
produced in the virtual world was shaped by the particularities of the local social situations.
On the other hand, males outperformed females in expressing compliment and admiration
as indicated in the following unedited examples:
1) “Muna: People can't live without internet.”
“Khaled: Great idea.”
2) “Aseel: TV is dobl edged weapon - good and bad.”
“Waleed: Very nice, Aseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel”,
3) “Kholood: “Interent is tool. Good for good students; bad for bad one.”
“Osama: Kholood - you have amazing and fantastic ideas”
This finding is in agreement with Shehadeh (1999), who showed that in most
male/female interactions males tend to give more frequent complimentary and admiration tokens
to what their female interlocutors type. In addition, both males and females obtained very low
means in emotional abuse discourse function, suggesting that neither of the study groups (males
and females) abused the other emotionally using CMC. These results are not in line with Spender
(1995) that in online settings women are targeted for abuse and harassment from their male
participants; Herring (1996) even asserted that CMC failed to neutralize gender distinctions. This
finding could be attributed to the formal CMC context.
Similarly, males significantly outperformed their female counterparts in producing
discourse functions that may be considered undesirable in this formal CMC context such as
requesting personal information and off topic. Below is an illustrate example:
1) “Lana: Internet can both good and not good. Use it to studying, use it to
communicate native speakers. So it is good. Use it to seeing films violence, bad
mails, etc, then it is bad.
2) “Hasan: Lana. You have wonderful views about the internet. I am very happy
to exchange ideas with you. Can I take your email to discussing the matter?”
It is unusual to see a male requesting contact information publicly from a female or vice
versa in formal classroom context due to the prevailing sociocultural values. Thus, it seems that
this may be a reflection of Western sociocultural values brought by various modern mass media
such as the Internet and its applications including CMC. This result seems to be in line with AlJehani’s (1995) finding that Arab people, especially the new generation, have come in touch with
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
58
other cultures, especially the Western culture, and acquired some of their norms, which affected
the underlying pattern of communicative behavior.
Users played social patterns, including students' participating with nicknames in the
virtual world of the CMC environment, which helped produce discourse functions different from
the discourse output generated in the face-to-face setting in the real world. It, therefore, can be
concluded that users can find good opportunities in using CMC which may affect the type of the
discourse functions. However, this finding contradicts Bromley (1995), who claims that CMC is
a gender-neutral space, and Herring (1996), stating that CMC is an equalizer of social relations,
and the assumption of gender neutrality in CMC is never initially questioned.
Finally, it can be concluded that EFL learners (both males and females) produced certain
discourse functions (e.g., compliment and admiration, requesting personal information and
questions) more than others (e.g., challenging, warning, imperatives, protesting and
disagreement, emotional abuse, and apology) using CMC. Therefore, instructors may exploit
CMC mode to enhance linguistic interaction and contact between different groups of learners to
produce certain discourse functions. While using CMC students may produce discourse functions
with various purposes. Brandon & Hollingshead (1999) reported that due to using the recent
technological modules and innovations, the learning outcomes and the generated linguistic
output are affected by the software utilized. This finding is compatible with the results reported
by other studies such as producing different discourse features (Sotillo, 2000) and affecting the
quality of feedback differently (Ho & Savignon, 2007).
6. Conclusions, implications and limitations
It can be concluded that different factors and conditions such as gender and opportunities of
interaction affect the quantity and type of discourse students produced. When conducting CMC
discussions teachers should take into consideration the participants’ sociocultural background.
EFL learners (both males and females) produced certain discourse functions using CMC. This
may motivate other studies related to the effect of CMC modes on discourse functions. For
example, a study may examine how males and females may produce discourse functions using
synchronous and asynchronous CMC. In the world of CMC users may not see each other’s faces,
hear each other’s voices, or become embarrassed when they make mistakes. Their identity was
not revealed to each other, which may help them express their opinions and attitudes, and so
demonstrate their certain aspects of sociolinguistic competence.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
59
Another implication may be related to the experimental conditions of the study. That is,
the findings show that EFL learners expressed their opinions and attitudes in formal, educational
CMC context, so it should be well arranged and put under the scrutiny of the instructor.
Furthermore, instructors should analyse the experimental conditions of the study carefully,
including understanding the participants’ sociocultural backgrounds.
Despite the fact that all experimental conditions between the two groups that participated
in the study were similar, the study was conducted under the supervision of the instructor, and all
the students had agreed to participate in the study, still some of them do not like conducting the
discussions between males and females. Besides, other types of sociolinguistic studies,
experimental or descriptive, for longer periods on bigger or different samples, would be useful to
investigate the effect of a developed attitude questionnaire about people’s linguistic behavior
under different sociocultural behaviors in CMC environment.
Finally, there are some limitations concerning the findings of this study. First,
participants in this study came from the Department of English in the College of Arts with
intermediate level of linguistic competence. The study also lasted only for a short time. In
addition, the investigation design consisted of two treatment groups (a male and a female) which
studied exclusively in the computerized language laboratory using synchronous CMC. Therefore,
the findings are limited to similar samples. Even though the sample consisted of balanced
proportion of males and females, most of the students in the Department of English Language
and Literature were females, and this might have affected the results. In addition, the study was
conducted in a formal classroom context. Moreover, this is an analytical study of a certain
sociolinguistic phenomenon – gender-related discourse functions. The study is also limited to
certain discourse functions because it is quite difficult to analyze all functions.
References
Abrams, Z. (2008). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using Internet-mediated projects to explore cultural
stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 141-160.
AbuSeileek, A. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493–514.
AbuSeileek, A. (2012). The effect of computer assisted cooperative learning method and group size on EFL learners'
achievement in communication skills. Computers and Education, 58(1), 231-239.
Acikalin, S. (2008). What about gender based pseudonyms in blogs? Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences
8(1), 275–284.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
60
Al-Jehani, N. (1995). Mecca: Sociocultural change and elaborate courtesy in the speech of females. Journal of King
Saud University, 6(2), 53-64.
Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (2008). The difference myth. In B. Rendtorff & A. Prengel (Eds.), Jahrbuch Frauenund Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft Kinder und ihr Geschlecht (Vol. 4, pp. 27-32).
Leverkusen, Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s Ways of Knowing. New York:
Basic Books.
Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. (1999) Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication
Education, 48(2), 109-126.
Bromley, H. (1995). Gender's dynamics online: What is new about new communications technology, Feminist
Collection: A Quarterly Review of Women's Studies Resources, 16(2), 16-21.
Cameron, D. (2009). Sex/gender, language and the new biologism. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 173-192.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Cassel, J., & Stone, M. (2005). Teaching dialogue to interdisciplinary teams through toolkits. Proceedings of the
Second ACL Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching NLP and CL (pp. 9–14). Ann
Arbor: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigm? Language Learning &
Technology, 1(1), 19-43.
Chartsbin. (2012). Mobile subscribers. Retrieved May 12, 2012 from http://chartsbin.com/view/1881.
Darhower, M. A. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2
classroom: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277.
Escalera, E. (2009). Gender differences in children’s use of discourse markers: Separate worlds or different
contexts? Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2479–2495.
Fitz, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face written electronic conferences. Language Learning
& Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
Goodwin, M. (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status and Exclusion. London: Blackwell.
Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter?
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2240–2255.
Hiramoto, M. (2010). Utterance final position and projection of femininity in Japanese. Woman and Gender, 4(1),
99-104.
Herring, S. (1994). Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the
New Frontier. Miami, USA: American Library Association.
Herring, S. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in CMC. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical
Perspectives in Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 115-145). Albany NY: State University of New York
Press.
Ho, M. & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal,
24(2), 269-290.
Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42-61, http://www.tewtjournal.org
61
Husseini, R. (2010). Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Amman: Freedom House.
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented
CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121-145.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat.
Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 146-166.
Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 64-84.
Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000). Let’s you and me have a little discussion: Computer mediated
communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 85–96.
Pérez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated
communication. CALICO Journal, 21, 89-104.
Richardson, H., & French, S. (2000). Education On-Line: What’s in it for Women? (Women Work and
Computerization: Charting a Course to the Future). Vancouver, BC: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554-577.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 53(4), 256261.
Sierpe, E. (2000). Gender and technological practice in electronic discussion lists: an examination of JESSE, the
library/information science education forum. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 273–289.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication.
Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power, and Cyberspace. North Melbourne: Spinifex.
Tomasil, D., & Volkow, N. (2011). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral
Cortex, August 30, 1-8.
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.
Ware, P., (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1),
43-63.
Winegar, R. (2002). Genderized Language in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Content Analysis of Online
Discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cincinnati: Union Institute and University.
Yılmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern
Language Journal, 95(1), 115-132.
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication.
ReCALL, 22(1), 20-38.
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts : A first exposure study.
Language Teaching Research, 15, 457-477.